Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Granny in SC stops home invaders with pistol.

Posted on: July 26, 2012 - 12:26pm

Brian37

Posts: 14674

Joined: 2006-02-14

Offline

Granny in SC stops home invaders with pistol.

It is all over the news so you can google it.

First off this is not either or for me. The outcome was that she was not hurt, so good for her. It seems two intruders were looking to rob her house and got to her bedroom door to open it only to be faced with a gun.

NOW here is where the NRA jackasses would go "see see see, guns do work"

Yea, SOMETIMES. However, be it a home invasion, or street gang violence, once you try to introduce a gun into a situation the risk of injury goes up dramatically. While it did work for this old lady, that is still the exception and not the rule. She was lucky that those guys were cowards. Two of them very easily could have rushed her, and knocked her down.

She got lucky in the fact that she audibly had time to prepare and position herself so that the shock of seeing the gun by the perps was enough. But that is NOT always the case. And someone hyped up on drugs or simply a Barny bad ass might have responded to her brandishing that gun with violence.

The fact that she did that does NOT make me want to go out and buy a gun. I simply think she got lucky.

And lucky for society her call to 911 go those two assholes arrested after they fled the house.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

Risk of injury goes up sure, but in this specific case, the gun might've saved her life, yes? There are plenty of statistics on both sides of the gun-debate, but don't US civilians have a better record for both collateral damage and unnessecary force when using firearms than the average police department? (i.e. a armed civvy defending themselves)

Risk of injury goes up sure, but in this specific case, the gun might've saved her life, yes? There are plenty of statistics on both sides of the gun-debate, but don't US civilians have a better record for both collateral damage and unnessecary force when using firearms than the average police department? (i.e. a armed civvy defending themselves)

I made that point, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, it did work, but that IS NOT THE NORM! The norm is when you have a gun in your house you are MORE LIKELY to injure yourself or hurt someone you love or shoot someone you mistook for a criminal.

She got lucky. I am glad she did. But a minute here or a second there, or if she didn't hear them sooner, instead of having her gun drawn, she could have been reaching for it with her back turned, and certainly at that point things would have been different.

Think of it this way. When someone is out to harm you, it is no different than shark stalking a seal. Certainly if the seal gets lucky it can avoid the attack. But that shark is relying on stealth. The reason she got the drop on them was because she had enough time.

Thought experiment.

Lets say we are face to face literally. I have a gun to your head. Now try to reach for your gun. Do you think you could if I had the drop on you, with my gun at your head, draw yours and pull your trigger before I pull mine?

With assholes who want to rob, be it with a gun or without, are looking for an easy target and even if they know they are going to encounter another human, are still going to look to sneak up on them. The main reason what worked for her wasn't that she was armed, but moreso that the guys who wanted to rob her house did not expect her to be there. If they did, and didn't care, I have no doubt they would have had the advantage.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

NOW here is where the NRA jackasses would go "see see see, guns do work"

Yep, put me on that list.

Brian37 wrote:

Yea, SOMETIMES. However, be it a home invasion, or street gang violence, once you try to introduce a gun into a situation the risk of injury goes up dramatically. While it did work for this old lady, that is still the exception and not the rule. She was lucky that those guys were cowards. Two of them very easily could have rushed her, and knocked her down.

Most likely the robbers would have had a couple of holes in them before they could knock her down. Charging someone with a gun is a very dangerous thing to do. And if they were the type to get violent, they would have gotten violent anyway and an unarmed old woman is pretty easy for two average men to disable.

Brian37 wrote:

She got lucky in the fact that she audibly had time to prepare and position herself so that the shock of seeing the gun by the perps was enough. But that is NOT always the case. And someone hyped up on drugs or simply a Barny bad ass might have responded to her brandishing that gun with violence.

She got very unlucky that someone broke into her house. Fortunately, she had prepared in advance for such an occasion, so instead of being one of the stories of an old lady pushed over with a broken hip or worse, it is a ho hum story of a couple of thugs getting the crap scared out of them.

Brian37 wrote:

The fact that she did that does NOT make me want to go out and buy a gun. I simply think she got lucky.

And lucky for society her call to 911 go those two assholes arrested after they fled the house.

You do whatever you want. I'm glad the old lady had a gun. Hopefully the punks will remember looking down the bad side of the barrel next time they think it is a good idea to rob a house and decide there are safer ways to make money.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

I made that point, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, it did work, but that IS NOT THE NORM! The norm is when you have a gun in your house you are MORE LIKELY to injure yourself or hurt someone you love or shoot someone you mistook for a criminal.

Evidence of this? I posted the evidence in the other thread recently that only about 600 odd accidents occur every year with guns (that includes hunting accidents), while even the conservative study suggested that over 60,000 crimes per year are prevented by armed citizens, the NRA's study suggested over 2 million which even I consider probably a stretch. Granted, both of those studies are old (early 90's). Do you have newer statistics?

Brian37 wrote:

She got lucky. I am glad she did. But a minute here or a second there, or if she didn't hear them sooner, instead of having her gun drawn, she could have been reaching for it with her back turned, and certainly at that point things would have been different.

And the alternative is she wouldn't have had a gun at all and she would have been completely at their mercy regardless of when she heard them. How is that any better?

Brian37 wrote:

Thought experiment.

Lets say we are face to face literally. I have a gun to your head. Now try to reach for your gun. Do you think you could if I had the drop on you, with my gun at your head, draw yours and pull your trigger before I pull mine?

Completely depends on your training and whether you are actually prepared mentally to pull the trigger. If the person holding the gun to my head is well trained and has killed before or at least has psyched themselves up with the intent to kill me, I am most likely eating a bullet. If they are using the gun to intimidate and have not made the conscious decision to commit murder they will most likely freeze up giving me ample time to draw and fire. Unless you have already made the decision to kill me, by the time you realize I am drawing a gun and make the decision it will be too late. If you have already made the decision to kill me then I have nothing to lose from trying anyway do I?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

I posted the evidence in the other thread recently that only about 600 odd accidents occur every year with guns (that includes hunting accidents), while even the conservative study suggested that over 60,000 crimes per year are prevented by armed citizens, the NRA's study suggested over 2 million which even I consider probably a stretch.

How about the number of crimes where guns are involved? Number of people (not criminals performing a crime at the time) killed by gun violence compared to countries with strict(er) regulation?

And btw, the raw number of "crimes prevented" isn't in any way directly comparable to the number of people injured or killed as far value is concerned. The fact someone prevented his car from being stolen or whatever doesn't really weigh as much on the scale as someone getting their face blown off by a shotgun.

I posted the evidence in the other thread recently that only about 600 odd accidents occur every year with guns (that includes hunting accidents), while even the conservative study suggested that over 60,000 crimes per year are prevented by armed citizens, the NRA's study suggested over 2 million which even I consider probably a stretch.

How about the number of crimes where guns are involved? Number of people (not criminals performing a crime at the time) killed by gun violence compared to countries with strict(er) regulation? And btw, the raw number of "crimes prevented" isn't in any way directly comparable to the number of people injured or killed as far value is concerned. The fact someone prevented his car from being stolen or whatever doesn't really weigh as much on the scale as someone getting their face blown off by a shotgun.

No no no the reality is that Beyond is Dirty Harry and we owe him an oath to no regulations on anything, fuck speed limits in school zones. Let our libertarian delusional friend here brandish his Paul Hogan invisible knife because feeling good is much better than reality. He feels rich, loves weapons so we are all subject to his religion because he knows what "true" freedom is, and idiots like you and me don't.

We owe Beyond our gratitude and thanks for all the conflict that continues despite his cries that nothing is wrong. Everyone needs a 50oz soda and tommy gun drum clip with 100 rounds. He is just being a good daddy telling us the cool aid is not poison but cotton candy.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

How about the number of crimes where guns are involved? Number of people (not criminals performing a crime at the time) killed by gun violence compared to countries with strict(er) regulation?

Completely irrelevant. Grandma's gun only would have been used for crime if she decided to use it for crime. But just since I have the stats handy 8,775 murders (out of 14,778 total) were committed using firearms in 2010, used in commission of a robbery 128,793 times, 146,461 times aggravated assault was charged (note there could be some overlap, because you could be charged with both robbery and aggravated assault for the same offense). So that is 284,029 crimes where guns were involved out of 1,246,248 violent crimes that were committed in the US in 2010.

I'll leave it to you to compare to other countries. You will find that some countries with much looser gun regulations have less murder while some have more, some countries with tighter regulation have more murder while some have less. Point being that gun control is hardly the sole determinant of a countries crime rate.

Manageri wrote:

And btw, the raw number of "crimes prevented" isn't in any way directly comparable to the number of people injured or killed as far value is concerned. The fact someone prevented his car from being stolen or whatever doesn't really weigh as much on the scale as someone getting their face blown off by a shotgun.

I never implied that it did. Grandma's freedom to protect herself from those thugs and our freedom to ultimately prevent our government from becoming tyrannical far outweighs whatever negative effects may be caused by legalized gun ownership. Freedom is far more important than life.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

No no no the reality is that Beyond is Dirty Harry and we owe him an oath to no regulations on anything, fuck speed limits in school zones. Let our libertarian delusional friend here brandish his Paul Hogan invisible knife because feeling good is much better than reality. He feels rich, loves weapons so we are all subject to his religion because he knows what "true" freedom is, and idiots like you and me don't.

We owe Beyond our gratitude and thanks for all the conflict that continues despite his cries that nothing is wrong. Everyone needs a 50oz soda and tommy gun drum clip with 100 rounds. He is just being a good daddy telling us the cool aid is not poison but cotton candy.

Exactly what am I forcing you to do? If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. If you don't want a 50oz soda, don't buy it.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

How about the number of crimes where guns are involved? Number of people (not criminals performing a crime at the time) killed by gun violence compared to countries with strict(er) regulation?

Completely irrelevant.

Irrelevant to what? This story? Well certainly, but I'm talking about the issue as a whole.

Quote:

Grandma's gun only would have been used for crime if she decided to use it for crime.

And the point of this tautology is...?

Quote:

But just since I have the stats handy 8,775 murders (out of 14,778 total) were committed using firearms in 2010, used in commission of a robbery 128,793 times, 146,461 times aggravated assault was charged (note there could be some overlap, because you could be charged with both robbery and aggravated assault for the same offense). So that is 284,029 crimes where guns were involved out of 1,246,248 violent crimes that were committed in the US in 2010.

I'll leave it to you to compare to other countries. You will find that some countries with much looser gun regulations have less murder while some have more, some countries with tighter regulation have more murder while some have less. Point being that gun control is hardly the sole determinant of a countries crime rate.

Of course it isn't, but if you compare to SIMILAR COUNTRIES (like western european ones, not some 3rd world shithole) do you really think the US won't have more victims of gun violence?

Quote:

Manageri wrote:

And btw, the raw number of "crimes prevented" isn't in any way directly comparable to the number of people injured or killed as far value is concerned. The fact someone prevented his car from being stolen or whatever doesn't really weigh as much on the scale as someone getting their face blown off by a shotgun.

I never implied that it did. Grandma's freedom to protect herself from those thugs and our freedom to ultimately prevent our government from becoming tyrannical far outweighs whatever negative effects may be caused by legalized gun ownership. Freedom is far more important than life.

Well I can agree that the quality of life far far outweighs merely having life. I don't think we'd agree on what exactly makes a life good though, seeing as you value freedom so highly whereas I don't really think the freedom to be an asshole and/or a danger to others is really a good thing. It's kinda like how people who believe in free will always seem to think it's a good thing, but I just can't really see how the hypothetical freedom to be a child molester if you could just be "normal" is such a great thing. But now I'm kinda drifting off the subject so:

It's not only grandma who had the freedom to have a gun there. Those people breaking in could also LEGALLY have had a gun. The fact that the criminals IN THIS CASE did not does not mean that as a rule of thumb the good guys usually have the gun and the bad guys don't, I'd argue it's
exactly the opposite. I mean just think about, who's more likely to be packin', the guy going out to commit a crime or his victim?

If only the good guys had the guns then I don't think there'd be any (rational) opposition to guns around. The fact is though that the way it usually works is that it's the criminals who go outta their way to get em, and even if every single person in your country was always armed it wouldn't stop people like the school shooters who planned on ending their own life at the end of their killing spree anyway. Now if those people didn't have access to guns and would have had to attempt their mass murders with melee weapons do you really think the death toll would have been so high?

As for the preventing your government from becoming tyrannical thing, how many times since the adoption of the 2nd amendment have you actually had to use that right for the overthrowing of a tyrannical government again? And still you say it's worth all the horror guns impose in your country?

Of course it isn't, but if you compare to SIMILAR COUNTRIES (like western european ones, not some 3rd world shithole) do you really think the US won't have more victims of gun violence?

Compared to some countries (Canada, UK, France) our violent crime rate exceeds theirs even if you eliminated 100% of the guns. Switzerland and Israel both have much lower gun crime rates than the US despite having much more relaxed gun control laws. When you consider that violent crime in the US is extremely heavy in some areas, while quite low in others, it doesn't take much to determine that legal gun ownership isn't the main source of our crime problems.

Manageri wrote:

Well I can agree that the quality of life far far outweighs merely having life. I don't think we'd agree on what exactly makes a life good though, seeing as you value freedom so highly whereas I don't really think the freedom to be an asshole and/or a danger to others is really a good thing. It's kinda like how people who believe in free will always seem to think it's a good thing, but I just can't really see how the hypothetical freedom to be a child molester if you could just be "normal" is such a great thing.

Who said anything about legalizing child molestation? Strawman much?

Manageri wrote:

But now I'm kinda drifting off the subject so: It's not only grandma who had the freedom to have a gun there. Those people breaking in could also LEGALLY have had a gun. The fact that the criminals IN THIS CASE did not does not mean that as a rule of thumb the good guys usually have the gun and the bad guys don't, I'd argue it's exactly the opposite.

Sure, maybe they could legally own a gun, they could also own one illegally- since they are committing a crime I doubt they would worry about committing another. It is fairly easy to purchase an illegal gun, I could get one delivered to my door within 24 hours if I so desired and if I am willing to drive, probably pick one up within a few hours. Guns are neither rare nor expensive in the US.

Manageri wrote:

I mean just think about, who's more likely to be packin', the guy going out to commit a crime or his victim?

If guns were illegal, then Grandma would probably follow the law and not have a gun and you have a guarantee that only the bad guys will have a gun. Since they are legal, the criminals have a 50/50 chance of running into someone who owns a gun. Approximately 50% of households have at least one gun, now how many of those households keep the gun in a location where it would be accessible in such a situation is difficult to say.

Manageri wrote:

If only the good guys had the guns then I don't think there'd be any (rational) opposition to guns around. The fact is though that the way it usually works is that it's the criminals who go outta their way to get em, and even if every single person in your country was always armed it wouldn't stop people like the school shooters who planned on ending their own life at the end of their killing spree anyway. Now if those people didn't have access to guns and would have had to attempt their mass murders with melee weapons do you really think the death toll would have been so high?

Do you seriously believe that even a 100% ban would prevent criminals from breaking the law? Why is a criminal going to worry about breaking a law? Especially if the law they are going to break is murder. Once you decide to murder someone, I doubt you are worried about following gun laws.

There is nothing you can do to prevent the occasional crazy from committing a mass murder, they happen in every country regardless of what gun control laws you have. Fortunately, those kinds of nutcases are rare.

Manageri wrote:

As for the preventing your government from becoming tyrannical thing, how many times since the adoption of the 2nd amendment have you actually had to use that right for the overthrowing of a tyrannical government again? And still you say it's worth all the horror guns impose in your country?

It has been used twice the first time obviously successfully and the second time the rebellion lost. Our country is still very young, a couple hundred years is nothing. Not to mention the role it has played in wars along our borders such as the War of 1812 and the Spanish-American War. Hopefully, we will never get to the point where it is needed again, and I seriously doubt it will happen during my lifetime. But history has shown that every country on the planet has become tyrannical, it is utterly foolish to assume that just because we are a democratic republic that somehow it will never happen here. Hitler was democratically elected. Just because there is a little piece of paper promising our government will not become tyrannical by no means guarantees that it never will. He who fails to learn from history is doomed to repeat it.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Compared to some countries (Canada, UK, France) our violent crime rate exceeds theirs even if you eliminated 100% of the guns. Switzerland and Israel both have much lower gun crime rates than the US despite having much more relaxed gun control laws. When you consider that violent crime in the US is extremely heavy in some areas, while quite low in others, it doesn't take much to determine that legal gun ownership isn't the main source of our crime problems.

I agree, even if you took all guns away the US is an extremely violent place compared to other similarly well off countries, but that doesn't mean guns dont make the problem worse.

Do you really think there aren't murders that would have been mere assaults if the perp hadn't had a gun, or assaults that would have been murders had the guy had a gun?

Quote:

Who said anything about legalizing child molestation? Strawman much?

I have no fucking clue how you got the idea I was claiming that you're for legalizing such things so I'm really not sure what to say here.

Quote:

Sure, maybe they could legally own a gun, they could also own one illegally- since they are committing a crime I doubt they would worry about committing another. It is fairly easy to purchase an illegal gun, I could get one delivered to my door within 24 hours if I so desired and if I am willing to drive, probably pick one up within a few hours. Guns are neither rare nor expensive in the US.

Now why do you think they aren't rare? Could it be because they've been legal and extremely easy to procure for hundreds of years?

If they had been well regulated for the past few hundred years do you think it would still be so easy for you to get one? I live in Finland and I have absolutely no fucking clue where I could illegally get a gun and due to the regulations here it would literally take me years of bureacracy and all that other bullshit to get one legally, along with background checks and mental health assessments which I know I wouldn't pass (despite having no criminal record).

Quote:

If guns were illegal, then Grandma would probably follow the law and not have a gun and you have a guarantee that only the bad guys will have a gun. Since they are legal, the criminals have a 50/50 chance of running into someone who owns a gun. Approximately 50% of households have at least one gun, now how many of those households keep the gun in a location where it would be accessible in such a situation is difficult to say.

50% of households does not mean I'm 50% likely to meet a guy packing a gun in any random situation. for example if I come up to a guy walking on the street and point a gun at him, the fact his household is 50% likely to own a gun does not mean he's carrying it with him, or that he is in a position to use it against me safely even if he is.

I'd also like to run another related hypothetical scenario by you: Imagine that instead of the grandma, the criminals had had the gun. Now that would certainly mean that the grandma would have been in much more danger, but it's not at all certain the criminals would have used it against her if she put up no resistance. Now imagine both parties have a gun and as the criminals come face to face with the pistol wielding granny, don't you think it possible they'd panic and fire at her right away?

Whether having the gun in that situation would make the granny safer on average or not is hard to say, but it definitely does not guarantee her safety.

Quote:

Do you seriously believe that even a 100% ban would prevent criminals from breaking the law? Why is a criminal going to worry about breaking a law? Especially if the law they are going to break is murder. Once you decide to murder someone, I doubt you are worried about following gun laws. There is nothing you can do to prevent the occasional crazy from committing a mass murder, they happen in every country regardless of what gun control laws you have. Fortunately, those kinds of nutcases are rare.

The fact they happen doesn't mean laws don't make a difference. Please go look at the number of gun murders in Norway compared to the US, for example. The fact they had one high profile mass murder recently does not make them an equally dangerous country to the US by any means.

I mean do you really think that the legal availability of guns has nothing to do with the illegal availability? If a country hands guns out like candy, do you really think it's not easier for the few people who aren't legally allowed to buy weapons in that country to get one illegally? No one's making the claim it's 100% impossible for criminals to get weapons illegally with stricter gun control laws, but it's quite obviously easier for them to get em if the laws are loose.

ok say the gun laws become much tighter or the ban them all together. what makes you think that will stop ANYTHING? only crooks would have guns then and crooks prefer unarmed citizens. now i understand that gun violence is at an all time high but stricter gun laws or banning them will do NOTHING yes gun violence may go down a little bit but the guns would be in the hands of the people we are trying to protect ourselves from... im liberal about most things but i dont agree with that... like i said im not trying to start an argument im just stating my opinion as a gun owner myself if someone busted in my house i would be secure in the fact that i can defend myself having had firearms training... now what i think should happen is that anyone who wants to buy a gun for the first time should take a training course to be safe... also blaming guns for killing people is like blaming mcdonalds for making someone fat... i would love some feedback on this

That argument isn't sound, and it annoys me. How exactly is the average criminal going to get and keep a gun in a society where their manufacture and ownership is banned? Sure the odd one who's actually smart may have one, but with every year that goes by they will become more rare, as all the idiots get caught and their weapons seized. This isn't the 1800's where there's a gunsmith on every corner selling high quality merchandise. Most people haven't the faintest idea how to make a firearm, let alone a functional automatic weapon.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not for banning guns, just weapons capable of taking down dozens in a short time, like the automatic weapons often used in shooting sprees for which there is no logical purpose for existence short of warfare.

It isn't. All the data clearly points to gun violence being significantly lower than it has been for decades (since the 60's). Ironically, it was during the time of long wait periods and the assault weapons ban when gun violence was at all time highs. Gun violence steadily fell at the end of the 90's and throughout the 2000's as many states legalized concealed carry and the assault weapons ban expired. Anyone who looks at the statistics will realize that our crime problem is significantly concentrated on a few demographics, specifically among the young black male population which has a murder rate six times higher than average as both victims and perpetrators. Furthermore, it is significantly concentrated in a handful of urban populations. If you are not black in the US the odds of you being a victim of murder is pretty close to average for the developed world. It is even lower if you avoid the worst cities and the southern border.

That argument isn't sound, and it annoys me. How exactly is the average criminal going to get and keep a gun in a society where their manufacture and ownership is banned? Sure the odd one who's actually smart may have one, but with every year that goes by they will become more rare, as all the idiots get caught and their weapons seized. This isn't the 1800's where there's a gunsmith on every corner selling high quality merchandise. Most people haven't the faintest idea how to make a firearm, let alone a functional automatic weapon. Don't get me wrong, I'm not for banning guns, just weapons capable of taking down dozens in a short time, like the automatic weapons often used in shooting sprees for which there is no logical purpose for existence short of warfare.

Except the guns are already here. Perhaps you could limit them to some extent if they were not, although even that is questionable, look at how prevalent illegal drugs like cocaine are despite being illegal and not domestically produced. Here in the US there is estimated to be over 200 million firearms. How would you get rid of all of them?

And automatic weapons? Virtually never used in the commission of a crime. How would outlawing a weapon that is never used to commit a crime reduce the amount of crime? Which shooting spree used an automatic weapon to kill dozens? The last shootout I remember where automatic weapons were involved was the North Hollywood bank robbery in California and the only people who died were the two robbers. The police had to go to a local firearms dealer to get guns powerful enough to penetrate the robbers' body armor.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Now why do you think they aren't rare? Could it be because they've been legal and extremely easy to procure for hundreds of years? If they had been well regulated for the past few hundred years do you think it would still be so easy for you to get one? I live in Finland and I have absolutely no fucking clue where I could illegally get a gun and due to the regulations here it would literally take me years of bureacracy and all that other bullshit to get one legally, along with background checks and mental health assessments which I know I wouldn't pass (despite having no criminal record).

Well yeah, if we were a small country without a lot of guns we would be a small country without a lot of guns and it might be possible. We are not a small country and we have a lot of guns. That isn't going to change. Our borders are huge and we can't even effectively prevent thousands of people from crossing the border. We are not dealing with the world as we wish it. If it took me years of bureaucracy to purchase a gun, I would buy my guns illegally.

Manageri wrote:

50% of households does not mean I'm 50% likely to meet a guy packing a gun in any random situation. for example if I come up to a guy walking on the street and point a gun at him, the fact his household is 50% likely to own a gun does not mean he's carrying it with him, or that he is in a position to use it against me safely even if he is.

I was referring to the specific situation in the OP. The odds of someone carrying a gun in public are significantly lower, however if you are in a state that allows concealed carry the odds of the criminal running into someone with a gun is much higher than a state that bans concealed carry. If I was a mugger, I wouldn't practice my trade in Texas, just saying, I would probably head for Illinois, the only state in the country that doesn't allow any concealed carry and also has one of the highest crime rates in the nation, including gun crime rates. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf (while Vermont has the least restrictive gun control laws and an extremely low crime rate, lower than say Finland even)

Manageri wrote:

I'd also like to run another related hypothetical scenario by you: Imagine that instead of the grandma, the criminals had had the gun. Now that would certainly mean that the grandma would have been in much more danger, but it's not at all certain the criminals would have used it against her if she put up no resistance. Now imagine both parties have a gun and as the criminals come face to face with the pistol wielding granny, don't you think it possible they'd panic and fire at her right away? Whether having the gun in that situation would make the granny safer on average or not is hard to say, but it definitely does not guarantee her safety.

Not having the gun guarantees that she is at the mercy of two people proven not to be nice. All of the statistics suggest that the people breaking and entering are far more likely to be the ones shot in situations where both parties are armed. I'm sure if you look hard enough you might find the occasional story where an armed citizen was shot and you could make the argument that they MAY have escaped unharmed if they were unarmed, but that is a very rare exception.

Manageri wrote:

The fact they happen doesn't mean laws don't make a difference. Please go look at the number of gun murders in Norway compared to the US, for example. The fact they had one high profile mass murder recently does not make them an equally dangerous country to the US by any means. I mean do you really think that the legal availability of guns has nothing to do with the illegal availability? If a country hands guns out like candy, do you really think it's not easier for the few people who aren't legally allowed to buy weapons in that country to get one illegally? No one's making the claim it's 100% impossible for criminals to get weapons illegally with stricter gun control laws, but it's quite obviously easier for them to get em if the laws are loose.

Comparing the US with a country like Norway is comparing apples to oranges. Norway's entire population isn't much higher than the populations of our large cities. I can sit here and cherry pick all day comparing crime rates in states with low levels of legal gun ownership to states with high levels of legal gun ownership, the bottom line is that legal gun ownership is not a major predictor of crime rates.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

There are almost 25 million guns in my state. THAT THEY KNOW OF. Which means... probably closer to 35 million.

Both my parents and I have a couple guns that even if the government went through all records of gun ownership and took them from everyone, would not show up.

Sure, it takes a criminal background check to buy a gun from a dealer.

What if Joe Smoe is selling a gun of his and I decided to buy it? No criminal background check, no transfer of some record that I'm the new owner, nothing. And Joe Smoe, he got that gun from his great Uncle's trailer when he passed away 23 years ago. And then poor Joe passes away a couple years later after the gun is sold to whoever. How many times do you think this exact type of transfer of guns has happened over the past 50 years?

How many times have criminals broke into a car or house and stolen guns that are still not accounted for?

I have an Uncle that snuck a handgun down to his summer residence in Mexico in pieces, during different trips, through the airports in checked in baggage. He managed it without a hitch.

So go ahead and illegalize all guns. I'll still own one. So will my parents. A hell of a lot of, for the most part, law abiding people I know will still own them. And don't worry about ammo. We've got a little packed away.

Why? Because we don't want to be the only person without a gun if a criminal breaks into our houses and threatens our family.

I could make cocaine after a five minute search. I could not make a gun after a five minute search. There is a massive difference between the two products. One requires significant metalworking, knowledge and application of chemistry and physics. The other a seed, a few chemicals, and an instruction manual of some type.

The guns are already here is not a sound argument. Back in 1940 approximately half of Americans were smokers. Today the number is closer to 10%.

All it takes is effort.

"And automatic weapons? Virtually never used in the commission of a crime. How would outlawing a weapon that is never used to commit a crime reduce the amount of crime? Which shooting spree used an automatic weapon to kill dozens?"

Lol most of them. Both the Colorado shootings in the last whatever # of years utilised automatic weapons. Almost every time more than a few (5-10) people are killed/wounded, an automatic was in play.

well i do see your point, but yea i agree the automatic weapons are unnecesary unless your in the military... ive heard alot on the issue im for keeping the 2nd amendment right.. yes this amendment was written back in the day.. but if someone were to outlaw guns do you honestly think murder will stop? there are plenty of other ways to kill eachother... but the problem i have is there are stupid assholes out there who use gun violence on impulse or premeditation.. and that yucks it up for the rest of us..

I don't believe guns should be outlawed. There are plenty of good reasons to have a gun, depending on circumstances. But noone should be able to fire a hundred rounds a minute into a crowded theatre or school or McDonalds or anywhere else that isn't a warzone.

I agree totally. You want to own a weapon, fine. Go hunting, fine. Shoot the occasional bad person, fine. None of these activities require a semi-automatic, let alone a 100 rounds. If you are that bad of a shot, you need to not own a weapon. Personally, I believe we should be limited to something like the 25-30 saddle carbine my mom owned. (Think Rooster Cogburn.) Lever action, open sights, light, almost no kick, and extremely accurate.

(Sheeze, I didn't realize it was an antique and she gave it away!)

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.

@ Beyond I could make cocaine after a five minute search. I could not make a gun after a five minute search. There is a massive difference between the two products. One requires significant metalworking, knowledge and application of chemistry and physics. The other a seed, a few chemicals, and an instruction manual of some type. The guns are already here is not a sound argument. Back in 1940 approximately half of Americans were smokers. Today the number is closer to 10%. All it takes is effort.

Guns are not that complex, given enough time even I could make a basic revolver with basic machinist tools. Much less complex than say building a car, which many amateur hobbyists do. There are not that many parts of a gun and none of them are particularly fancy or unique. You might not get a pistol as high quality as the most modern Glock but it will certainly be accurate and deadly enough for a criminal at short range, although, there are plenty of hobbyists capable of building premium quality guns in their garages.

Making a high quality rifle that can shoot accurately out to 300 yards would be a bit harder but such rifles are rarely used in crime anyway. And yes, there are plenty of gunsmiths who have the tools available. There are three in my town alone that I know of with a population of 60,000. As for the bullets, most shooting enthusiasts I know already load their own bullets, it isn't rocket science. I know some guys who even make their own gun powder, instructions on how to do so are readily available all over the internet and other than gunpowder the rest of the components of a bullet are easily available or can even be easily replaced by a variety of materials.

Vastet wrote:

"And automatic weapons? Virtually never used in the commission of a crime. How would outlawing a weapon that is never used to commit a crime reduce the amount of crime? Which shooting spree used an automatic weapon to kill dozens?" Lol most of them. Both the Colorado shootings in the last whatever # of years utilised automatic weapons. Almost every time more than a few (5-10) people are killed/wounded, an automatic was in play.

No, he didn't. He used an AR-15, one of the most common semi-automatic sporting rifles in the US. It is based on the M-16 but is semi-auto, not full auto. He used a 12 gauge Remington 870 shotgun, a semi-automatic shotgun and among the most common shotguns used for hunting. And he used a .40 Glock handgun, a fairly common (semi-automatic) self defense pistol.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Personally, I believe we should be limited to something like the 25-30 saddle carbine my mom owned. (Think Rooster Cogburn.) Lever action, open sights, light, almost no kick, and extremely accurate.

Remember Charles Whitman, Austin, Texas, 1966 ? He killed ten of his victims with a scoped, bolt-action hunting rifle while on the observation deck of the UTA clock tower. Are you okay with that class of weapon ? Gun control advocates already have these weapons on their agenda and refer to these types of rifles as "sniper rifles".

Incidentally, I usually don't trust the motives of anyone, particularly elected officials, who claim to want to ban only certain types of commonly owned weapons. Such approaches are intentionally misleading and presage a continued series of ever restrictive laws until civilian gun ownership itself is a crime. And that is the goal.

For example, the whole anti-smoking movement began when airline stewardesses started to complain about the patrons who legally smoked aboard the planes. Successive laws were passed which constantly expanded where one could and could not smoke. Today even privately owned businesses such as restaurants, bars, pool halls, etc are not allowed to decide on their own how to accommodate the preferences of their customers. ( Here's a novel approach, let the market decide whether people will patronize a smoking or non-smoking establishment, not anti-smoking crusaders )

Now years later, there are movements to restrict smoking in one's own home. Incidentally, Democrat, Frank Lautenberg ....who was instrumental is passing some of these anti-smoking laws... is behind a push to ban "certain" types of weapons. If anyone believes he will stop only with the banning of military style weapons then they are willfully blind. These government prohibitionists are evil, not stupid. They know what works and what doesn't.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

well i do see your point, but yea i agree the automatic weapons are unnecesary unless your in the military...

Just a minor nit-pick hbmbc30 but such things alcohol, cigarettes or cars that are capable of exceeding the speed limit are also quite unnecessary, yet all of which are nevertheless instrumental in the deaths of multitudes of American lives every year.

Anyway, in the past I've been friends with people who legally own fully automatic sub machine guns, assault rifles, and even belt-fed fifties like you have in your avatar. They own them because of an abiding interest in that class of weaponry and the enjoyment of firing and maintaining them. It was never about them being necessary.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

Does anyone want to quess what the authers of the 2nd ammendment [Monroe, Madison, Jefferson] would have written if they had even an inkling of .50 cal. semi-automatics with 50 round clips? Single shot muzzle loaders was all they knew has firearms, and hostile Indians on the frontier was all they were concerned with. Don't forget [has most gun-lovers do] the first line of the 2nd ammendment reads, "To insure a WELL REGULATED MILITIA..." .So excuse me if the rest of the constitution makes it clear that "Regulated Militia" are government concerns, not privete ownership. Somewhere in Americas history SCOTUS made a ruleing about "firearms being only what one man can carry in his arms" otherwise the NRA would be clammering for ownership of cannons, howitzers, recoiless rifles...etc. Do you realy think the founding fathers would have wanted 30 round pistols and 50 round rifles in privete "unregulated" hands. I think they were too smart for that.

I was referring to the specific situation in the OP. The odds of someone carrying a gun in public are significantly lower, however if you are in a state that allows concealed carry the odds of the criminal running into someone with a gun is much higher than a state that bans concealed carry. If I was a mugger, I wouldn't practice my trade in Texas, just saying, I would probably head for Illinois, the only state in the country that doesn't allow any concealed carry and also has one of the highest crime rates in the nation, including gun crime rates. http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0308.pdf (while Vermont has the least restrictive gun control laws and an extremely low crime rate, lower than say Finland even)

Well Finland isn't exactly a low murder country compared to our scandinavian neighbours for example. The US has still had about twice the murder rate over the whole last decade though, so the fact you can cherry pick the stats of a few states over a single year isn't evidence of anything whatsoever.

Quote:

Not having the gun guarantees that she is at the mercy of two people proven not to be nice. All of the statistics suggest that the people breaking and entering are far more likely to be the ones shot in situations where both parties are armed. I'm sure if you look hard enough you might find the occasional story where an armed citizen was shot and you could make the argument that they MAY have escaped unharmed if they were unarmed, but that is a very rare exception.

Ok, let's say you're right. Does the fact owning a gun makes you safer in the case of an armed intruder mean that owning a gun makes you and the rest of society safer overall? For example domestic altercations turning into homicides or kids finding the gun and having an accident?

Quote:

Comparing the US with a country like Norway is comparing apples to oranges. Norway's entire population isn't much higher than the populations of our large cities. I can sit here and cherry pick all day comparing crime rates in states with low levels of legal gun ownership to states with high levels of legal gun ownership, the bottom line is that legal gun ownership is not a major predictor of crime rates.

Guess how many first world countries are over the US? The only one with a higher average over the decade is Turkey (and not by a huge margin). You really think the gun culture does nothing to contribute to those numbers?

Well Finland isn't exactly a low murder country compared to our scandinavian neighbours for example. The US has still had about twice the murder rate over the whole last decade though, so the fact you can cherry pick the stats of a few states over a single year isn't evidence of anything whatsoever.

Exactly my point. The correlation between gun laws and crime rate is hardly strong. There are dozens of other factors and several factors that are much more important than the rate of gun ownership. If you are attempting to predict where the most murders are going to happen, the guns laws are an unimportant factor.

Manageri wrote:

Ok, let's say you're right. Does the fact owning a gun makes you safer in the case of an armed intruder mean that owning a gun makes you and the rest of society safer overall? For example domestic altercations turning into homicides or kids finding the gun and having an accident?

Demanding that individuals be unable to protect themselves in the name of the greater good is immoral. Society would be much safer if we simply locked up everyone in a high risk demographic for committing crime, just because something may make society overall more safe does not mean it is a good idea.

Manageri wrote:

It's not like I had to cherry pick Norway, the US sucks in comparison to pretty much all non-shithole countries, here's a fun little chart to illustrate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#2000s Guess how many first world countries are over the US? The only one with a higher average over the decade is Turkey (and not by a huge margin). You really think the gun culture does nothing to contribute to those numbers?

Yet if you remove drug/gang related violence the homicide rate is suddenly right in the middle of the pack. So no, the gun culture is not the major contributor to those numbers. We have a homicide problem because of our drug and gang problem. We do not have a higher homicide rate across the board, the sources of our high homicide rate are isolated among a few demographics and a few geographic locations. And a review of state laws will show that state gun control laws are not an accurate predictor of crime rates.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Exactly my point. The correlation between gun laws and crime rate is hardly strong. There are dozens of other factors and several factors that are much more important than the rate of gun ownership. If you are attempting to predict where the most murders are going to happen, the guns laws are an unimportant factor.

Ok, fine, other factors matter more. Doesn't mean guns don't make it worse, and it certainly doesn't mean they make things better. If they did, we'd have clear negative correlation between the number of guns and violence, right?

I mean with the number of guns per person in the US being about triple that of most scandinavian countries, yet the number of murders in the US at double or more, I certainly can't see any grounds for arguing lots of guns improve citizens' safety.

Quote:

Demanding that individuals be unable to protect themselves in the name of the greater good is immoral.

Sorry but this is fucking retarded. NOTHING is immoral if it's for the greater good, that's what good means. If something's immoral then by definition it cannot be for the greater good.

If I follow your logic then I can detonate a bomb that incinerates every other person on the planet just to protect myself if that's my only means of self defense.

Quote:

Society would be much safer if we simply locked up everyone in a high risk demographic for committing crime, just because something may make society overall more safe does not mean it is a good idea.

Well seeing as the people being locked away are part of society you can't really do that without affecting the society you're trying to protect. That doesn't mean I'd be opposed to locking some people up though, even if they aren't technically criminals yet (or haven't relapsed yet). I mean if we had strong evidence that someone who's molested kids before is extremely likely to do it again, I'd say it's totally justifiable to lock him up if that's the only way to prevent it, even if he's already served whatever sentence he received for his first crime. That guy's freedom just doesn't weigh more than the right of children not to get raped.

By "locking up" I don't necessarily mean some shitty prison cell btw, in cases like the one above I'd go for whatever is the most ethical yet safe way of protecting the potential victims. It doesn't even have to be total isolation like in prison, but I'd be ok with even that if there was a good enough reason.

Quote:

Yet if you remove drug/gang related violence the homicide rate is suddenly right in the middle of the pack. So no, the gun culture is not the major contributor to those numbers. We have a homicide problem because of our drug and gang problem. We do not have a higher homicide rate across the board, the sources of our high homicide rate are isolated among a few demographics and a few geographic locations. And a review of state laws will show that state gun control laws are not an accurate predictor of crime rates.

Yet if the gangs didn't have guns there'd be less deaths, and definitely less collateral damage.

Does anyone want to quess what the authers of the 2nd ammendment [Monroe, Madison, Jefferson] would have written if they had even an inkling of .50 cal. semi-automatics with 50 round clips? Single shot muzzle loaders was all they knew has firearms, and hostile Indians on the frontier was all they were concerned with. Don't forget [has most gun-lovers do] the first line of the 2nd ammendment reads, "To insure a WELL REGULATED MILITIA..." .So excuse me if the rest of the constitution makes it clear that "Regulated Militia" are government concerns, not privete ownership. Somewhere in Americas history SCOTUS made a ruleing about "firearms being only what one man can carry in his arms" otherwise the NRA would be clammering for ownership of cannons, howitzers, recoiless rifles...etc. Do you realy think the founding fathers would have wanted 30 round pistols and 50 round rifles in privete "unregulated" hands. I think they were too smart for that.

I think it is quite clear that the founders intended firearms to be held by the populace for the main purpose of overthrowing the standing army. That would imply an ability to have weapons that are powerful enough to battle against soldiers in the US Army. Indeed, there was significant argument over whether there even should be a standing army. You can read the debates where some argued that a militia could replace a standing army while others argued that we needed both. Then they argued about whether the militia should be subject to federal control or the states. The argument against authorizing the federal government to arm the militia was the fear that they would fail to do so and effectively disarm the people by not forming a militia, which is ultimately why the duty of arming was left to the people.

James Madison commented on the issue in Federalist 46 where it is clear that he imagined widespread citizen ownership of weapons.

Federalist 46 wrote:

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.

Richard Henry Lee wrote in his "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican"

Quote:

The military forces of a free country may be considered under three general descriptions — 1. The militia. 2. the navy — and 3. the regular troops — and the whole ought ever to be, and understood to be, in strict subordination to the civil authority; and that regular troops, and select corps, ought not to be kept up without evident necessity. Stipulations in the constitution to this effect, are perhaps, too general to be of much service, except merely to impress on the minds of the people and soldiery, that the military ought ever to be subject to the civil authority, &c. But particular attention, and many more definite stipulations, are highly necessary to render the military safe, and yet useful in a free government; and in a federal republic, where the people meet in distinct assemblies, many stipulations are necessary to keep a part from transgressing, which would be unnecessary checks against the whole met in one legislature, in one entire government. — A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. The powers to form and arm the militia, to appoint their officers, and to command their services, are very important; nor ought they in a confederated republic to be lodged, solely, in any one member of the government. First, the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided. I am persuaded, I need not multiply words to convince you of the value and solidity of this principle, as it respects general liberty, and the duration of a free and mild government: having this principle well fixed by the constitution, then the federal head may prescribe a general uniform plan, on which the respective states shall form and train the militia, appoint their officers and solely manage them, except when called into the service of the union, and when called into that service, they may be commanded and governed by the union. This arrangement combines energy and safety in it; it places the sword in the hands of the solid interest of the community, and not in the hands of men destitute of property, of principle, or of attachment to the society and government, who often form the select corps of peace or ordinary establishments: by it, the militia are the people, immediately under the management of the state governments, but on a uniform federal plan, and called into the service, command, and government of the union, when necessary for the common defence and general tranquility. But, say gentlemen, the general militia are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns, cannot well be called out, or be depended upon; that we must have a select militia; that is, as I understand it, particular corps or bodies of young men, and of men who have but little to do at home, particularly armed and disciplined in some measure, at the public expence, and always ready to take the field. These corps, not much unlike regular troops, will ever produce an inattention to the general militia; and the consequence has ever been, and always must be, that the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it. As a farther check, it may be proper to add, that the militia of any state shall not remain in the service of the union, beyond a given period, without the express consent of the state legislature.

Clearly, the term "militia" was understood to have a much broader context than the National Guard as many in the gun control crowd try to pretend.

The initial wording of the Second Amendment was

Quote:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service.

Reading commentary on the Constitution from the time it is clear that the Second Amendment was widely understood as providing individuals the right to bear arms. For example, William Rawle commented,

Quote:

The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.

In most of the countries of Europe, this right does not seem to be denied, although it is allowed more, or less sparingly, according to circumstances. In England, a country which boasts so much of its freedom, the right was secured to Protestant subjects only, on the revolution of 1688; and it is cautiously described to be that of bearing arms for their defence, "suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law." An arbitrary code for the preservation of game in that country has long disgraced them. A very small proportion of the people being permitted to kill it, though for their own subsistence; a gun or other instrument, used for that purpose by an unqualified person, may be seized and forfeited. Blackstone, in whom we regret that we cannot always trace the expanded principles of rational liberty, observes however, on this subject, that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the people, is oftener meant than avowed, by the makers of forest and game laws.

The idea the the right to bear arms is an individual right has also been consistently supported by SCOTUS. In United States v. Miller 307 US 174 Justice McReynolds wrote for a unanimous court,

Quote:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

The Court actually upheld regulation of sawed off shotguns because no evidence was presented to them that a sawed off shotgun was a military weapon. Following the logic of this decision, you do not have a right to a bb gun since it has no military application, but you do have a right to an M-16 because the former does not have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

Quote:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense

It is clear that government can regulate where guns can be carried and it can require background checks to prevent felons or the incompetent from getting firearms. It has the power to require registration, and the Court is apparently willing to give more leeway to the government the more dangerous a weapon is. For example, the requirements to purchase a machine gun are much more time consuming than to purchase a rifle or typical handgun. Although in recent cases District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago the Court made it clear that government cannot use a burdensome permitting process as a method of denying firearm ownership.

From my point of view, ownership of all personal firearms is protected by the Second Amendment and the remaining state laws that are a barrier to this are unconstitutional. However, it is reasonable that government has the authority to have a basic permitting process, provided that process is conducted with a level of efficiency with the goal to prevent criminals from getting them. When the process is deliberately slowed or the process of getting a permit becomes burdensome to the point that the average law abiding citizen cannot get one, the process is unconstitutional.

Given that the main purpose of the Second Amendment was to provide the people a method to fight the US military, I believe our founders would include all standard military weapons. The amendment is pointless if the people are not allowed to have weapons that can effectively be used to resist our standing army.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Ok, fine, other factors matter more. Doesn't mean guns don't make it worse, and it certainly doesn't mean they make things better. If they did, we'd have clear negative correlation between the number of guns and violence, right? I mean with the number of guns per person in the US being about triple that of most scandinavian countries, yet the number of murders in the US at double or more, I certainly can't see any grounds for arguing lots of guns improve citizens' safety.

I never argued it did. I only argue it made grandma more safe. Many gun rights advocates do argue that guns make society more safe. In my opinion, it is irrelevant and the data does not show clearly one way or the other.

Manageri wrote:

Quote:

Demanding that individuals be unable to protect themselves in the name of the greater good is immoral.

Sorry but this is fucking retarded. NOTHING is immoral if it's for the greater good, that's what good means. If something's immoral then by definition it cannot be for the greater good. If I follow your logic then I can detonate a bomb that incinerates every other person on the planet just to protect myself if that's my only means of self defense.

A lot of things done in the name of the "greater good" have been immoral. How many people throughout history have been slaughtered in the name of the "greater good"? A utilitarian approach can be used to justify a lot of evils. For starters, society would certainly be much safer if there was a strict curfew and people were only allowed to travel to work, to pick up basic supplies and go home. You could track them with computer chips in their bodies that would send an alert if someone left an approved path. Why, I bet you could have a near zero murder rate. Doesn't mean it is a good idea.

Manageri wrote:

Yet if the gangs didn't have guns there'd be less deaths, and definitely less collateral damage.

But they do have guns, and they will have guns. We have to deal with the problem as it exists, not as we wish it. If drugs didn't exist we wouldn't have those problems either, but they do. Making them illegal has done nothing to prevent them from crossing our border or being manufactured. If a ban doesn't work for drugs, what makes you imagine it would work better for guns?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Remember Charles Whitman, Austin, Texas, 1966 ? He killed ten of his victims with a scoped, bolt-action hunting rifle while on the observation deck of the UTA clock tower. Are you okay with that class of weapon ? Gun control advocates already have these weapons on their agenda and refer to these types of rifles as "sniper rifles".

Incidentally, I usually don't trust the motives of anyone, particularly elected officials, who claim to want to ban only certain types of commonly owned weapons. Such approaches are intentionally misleading and presage a continued series of ever restrictive laws until civilian gun ownership itself is a crime. And that is the goal.

For example, the whole anti-smoking movement began when airline stewardesses started to complain about the patrons who legally smoked aboard the planes. Successive laws were passed which constantly expanded where one could and could not smoke. Today even privately owned businesses such as restaurants, bars, pool halls, etc are not allowed to decide on their own how to accommodate the preferences of their customers. ( Here's a novel approach, let the market decide whether people will patronize a smoking or non-smoking establishment, not anti-smoking crusaders )

Now years later, there are movements to restrict smoking in one's own home. Incidentally, Democrat, Frank Lautenberg ....who was instrumental is passing some of these anti-smoking laws... is behind a push to ban "certain" types of weapons. If anyone believes he will stop only with the banning of military style weapons then they are willfully blind. These government prohibitionists are evil, not stupid. They know what works and what doesn't.

I fully agree with Prozac on this one.

Taking guns out of the equation for a moment, think about all the other methods of terror that are out there. Anyone that has taken a couple of chemistry courses could rig up some serious explosives if they so desired, with everyday household detergents and a couple of other things. What laws should we pass to prevent people from doing so ? Where does the law end ? Smoking laws being one good example. In this state, if you have children in the car with you and are caught smoking, the cops can actually fine you or all the way up to arresting you if they so desire. I remember a couple of years ago when it first went into effect, because there was a HUGE controversy over a mother going to jail for smoking a cigarette with a kid in the car.

Shit, I even had a job where you could not smoke in your own damned car or in the parking lot. When I was on break, I had to ride the bike down the street to smoke a cigarette. People with closed vehicles and cars had to do the same. I lasted a month and quit. I coudn't work for a company that told me I couldn't smoke in the parking lot.

I have a friend that has suffered from severe sinus problems for years. He told me the only thing that REALLY helped him was Sudafed. Don't know about anywhere else, but in this state, your only allowed to buy so many boxes of Sudafed before a red light goes up and they come after you due to the highly out of control meth epidemic that we have in this city. So he has pretty much quit taking it. It is no longer over the counter and every time you buy it, they ask for your driver's license and enter your name and address into the computer.

Not a day goes by in this city, that it doesn't make the headlines of the newspaper,that yet another meth lab has been busted and there is even a thing on the streets called "shoppers" where meth dealers hire several people to buy the amounts of sudafed to supply them with. There have been many arrests over that. Not to mention all of the people that have made headlines for going to work in places like Walgreens and throwing inventory out of the back door.

So certain over the counter meds, that you used to be able to just buy, are now being monitored by the government, yet it has not curbed the crime one bit. In fact, it has increased it.

So where do we draw the line on government control ? Call it slippery slope fallacy if you will, but I just see it more and more.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

A lot of things done in the name of the "greater good" have been immoral. How many people throughout history have been slaughtered in the name of the "greater good"? A utilitarian approach can be used to justify a lot of evils. For starters, society would certainly be much safer if there was a strict curfew and people were only allowed to travel to work, to pick up basic supplies and go home. You could track them with computer chips in their bodies that would send an alert if someone left an approved path. Why, I bet you could have a near zero murder rate. Doesn't mean it is a good idea.

I intentionally left out "in the name of". When I say greater good I mean whatever actually IS the greater good, not what the person doing something thinks it to be. You do think there is such a thing, right?

Your curfew example completely ignores the happiness of the people so pretending it's somehow a logical conclusion of utilitarianism is nonsense. People intentionally put their lives at risk every day. I don't know how you've gotten the idea that utilitarians must only focus on survival but it's got nothing to do with reality.

Quote:

But they do have guns, and they will have guns. We have to deal with the problem as it exists, not as we wish it. If drugs didn't exist we wouldn't have those problems either, but they do. Making them illegal has done nothing to prevent them from crossing our border or being manufactured. If a ban doesn't work for drugs, what makes you imagine it would work better for guns?

Well as someone already pointed out, growing some weed isn't exactly up there on the difficulty ladder with building a semi-automatic weapon, so comparing them is kinda silly.

Anyway, I wasn't really arguing a local ban would have some magical instantaneous effect, just pointing out that guns do make matters worse, not better (which I understand you're not arguing but many others are).

A lot of things done in the name of the "greater good" have been immoral. How many people throughout history have been slaughtered in the name of the "greater good"? A utilitarian approach can be used to justify a lot of evils. For starters, society would certainly be much safer if there was a strict curfew and people were only allowed to travel to work, to pick up basic supplies and go home. You could track them with computer chips in their bodies that would send an alert if someone left an approved path. Why, I bet you could have a near zero murder rate. Doesn't mean it is a good idea.

Manageri wrote:

Yet if the gangs didn't have guns there'd be less deaths, and definitely less collateral damage.

But they do have guns, and they will have guns. We have to deal with the problem as it exists, not as we wish it. If drugs didn't exist we wouldn't have those problems either, but they do. Making them illegal has done nothing to prevent them from crossing our border or being manufactured. If a ban doesn't work for drugs, what makes you imagine it would work better for guns?

Hmm, on a another board that I play around on once in a awhile, a guy in England said that you might not have to worry about a gang shooting you. But that does not prevent them from using bricks, bats, and glass bottles to smash you in the head with and then beat you to death while you are down.

I don't know if anyone remembers, but back in the 80's, England was one of the first countries that had a group of skinhead thugs that liked to engage in what they called " Paki bashing". The recent rise of immigrants from Pakistan and Asia caused several groups to go out " Paki bashing". They would corner an immigrant walking down the street and promptly beat him for as long as they wished. Sometimes to the point of permanent injury or death. Not to mention setting immigrant owned businesses on fire, as well as apartment housing that had a large immigrant community.

I was watching Gangland the other night, and several neo-nazi gangs out there earn points for ganging up on homeless people, or people that they don't think are white and simply beating them with bats.

While I despise a group of cowards that need strength in numbers to beat on ONE defenseless individual, should we outlaw baseball bats too ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

Does anyone want to quess what the authers of the 2nd ammendment [Monroe, Madison, Jefferson] would have written if they had even an inkling of .50 cal. ..( snip )..

I will. Fifty caliber rifles existed during their lifetimes ( 18'th century ) and even larger calibers were utterly commonplace. The British military used a musket called the "Brown Bess" that fired a 75 caliber projectile. It was used by both sides in the American Revolutionary War. What do you think that 75 caliber ball did to human flesh ?

Jeffrick wrote:

......(snip)...semi-automatics with 50 round clips?

If you were truly interested in what the Founding Fathers would have considered relevant for the modern era, one would only need to look around the world and see what types of small arms are actually being used in the modern era. For example, the civilians in Libya and Syria who are attempting to overthrow their dictatorships ( Arab Spring ) are not fighting back with weapons that were designed 300 years ago. Another hint, if the American revolution were being fought in the twenty-first century the weapons being employed by both the modern "Minute Men" and the modern British soldiers would reflect the weapons technology of the twenty-first century. Nostalgia has no place in such dire circumstances. Please stop acting as if it does.

Jeffrick wrote:

Single shot muzzle loaders was all they knew as firearms...

That was my point, actually. ( ...but do you think the Minute Men would have refused to use more modern weapons if they had access to them ? The Red Coats used to think it was unfair that many of our armed citizens sniped at them from concealed positions, and wore clothing that made them difficult to spot ( camouflage ). It was a war. Gaining an advantage over the British was a viable tactic to be pursued at all costs. )

Jeffrick wrote:

...and hostile Indians on the frontier was all they were concerned with. Don't forget [has most gun-lovers do] the first line of the 2nd ammendment reads, "To insure a WELL REGULATED MILITIA..." .So excuse me if the rest of the constitution makes it clear that "Regulated Militia" are government concerns, not private ownership.

Your interpretation is at odds with the everyday experience of millions of legal gun owners. All of my weapons were purchased according to the strict dictates of American Law. The BATF is a federal law enforcement entity that governs such purchases. When I have filled out the 4473 Yellow Sheet I have yet to be instructed to supply information concerning what my militia rank is, what regiment I belong to, etc. These transactions are themselves evidence that the Federal Government not only recognizes firearms ownership as an individual right, but that they have even set up their own requirements that actually facilitate these transactions to private citizens. How much more evidence is needed to establish this precedent ?

Jeffrick wrote:

Somewhere in Americas history SCOTUS made a ruleing about "firearms being only what one man can carry in his arms" otherwise the NRA would be clammering for ownership of cannons, howitzers, recoiless rifles...etc.

You should familiarize yourself with the SCOTUS "District of Columbia vs Heller" from 2008. "(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. pp2-53 (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes and individual right to keep and bear arms. pp2-22."

Jeffrick wrote:

Do you realy think the founding fathers would have wanted 30 round pistols and 50 round rifles in privete "unregulated" hands. I think they were too smart for that.

Based upon the actual experiences of the Revolutionary War ( in which private civilians fought using individually owned "modern" arms ) the writings of James Madison and others, and subsequent legal decisions during the long interim I would say that your attempt at revisionist history would probably sicken them.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

Well as someone already pointed out, growing some weed isn't exactly up there on the difficulty ladder with building a semi-automatic weapon, so comparing them is kinda silly.

Afghanistan is a war-torn, Third World country. Even in that bombed out, technologically deprived environment they have many, many gun smiths who reverse engineer existing weapon designs ( mostly AK assault rifles ) so that they maintain a sufficient level of weaponry to use against their enemies. Their copies are crudely finished but are obviously suitably reliable for use in even the most unforgiving environment.

So no, one needn't be an MIT graduate or have access to CNC lathes to manufacture this type of weapon. The difficulty is only limited by one's determination.

"The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
Ayn Rand

Afghanistan is a war-torn, Third World country. Even in that bombed out, technologically deprived environment they have many, many gun smiths who reverse engineer existing weapon designs ( mostly AK assault rifles ) so that they maintain a sufficient level of weaponry to use against their enemies. Their copies are crudely finished but are obviously suitably reliable for use in even the most unforgiving environment.

So no, one needn't be an MIT graduate or have access to CNC lathes to manufacture this type of weapon. The difficulty is only limited by one's determination.

No one said gunsmiths can't make an automatic weapon. I said it's by far more complicated to make one than it is to stash some seeds in dirt, and therefore trying to equate the two to imply that they're somehow just as hard to control is silly.

Well as someone already pointed out, growing some weed isn't exactly up there on the difficulty ladder with building a semi-automatic weapon, so comparing them is kinda silly.

Afghanistan is a war-torn, Third World country. Even in that bombed out, technologically deprived environment they have many, many gun smiths who reverse engineer existing weapon designs ( mostly AK assault rifles ) so that they maintain a sufficient level of weaponry to use against their enemies. Their copies are crudely finished but are obviously suitably reliable for use in even the most unforgiving environment.

So no, one needn't be an MIT graduate or have access to CNC lathes to manufacture this type of weapon. The difficulty is only limited by one's determination.

A simple lathe in a machine shop would be all that one would need to build a weapon. I wonder how many unemployed machinists out there would be more than happy to work for a gang or individuals to manufacture a gun ?

A gang member is not going to buy a pistol the way that I did. When I walk into a gun store, I have to fill out an application, have a background check, and wait for approval. If I want to carry the thing, I have to go register with the state, take a class about gun safety AND have the permit with me.

A simple computer check will show that I own a .357 mag and a 9mm.

I doubt very seriously that someone who wants to commit a robbery or a murder would wish to have all of that public information.

Sure, they can buy them legally and file the serial numbers off, but being caught with a pistol that does not have a serial number in my state can land you some serious jail time, even if you have a permit to carry. A gun without a serial number is not a crime to be taken lightly. It's a felony in of itself.

That's why most criminals will buy one off the street with a serial number filed off, use it, and then dispose of it or sell it to someone else.

As for the gangbangers. They're breaking the law and probably committing felonies on a daily basis anyhow. What's a hot gun to someone like them ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

No one said gunsmiths can't make an automatic weapon. I said it's by far more complicated to make one than it is to stash some seeds in dirt, and therefore trying to equate the two to imply that they're somehow just as hard to control is silly.

Yet, if your caught with enough weed, you can do some serious prison time. If it goes over a certain amount, it automatically becomes : intent to sell and distribute charge. You can get ten to 20 years for that. But, so far as I know, people are still smoking it.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

Yet, if your caught with enough weed, you can do some serious prison time. If it goes over a certain amount, it automatically becomes : intent to sell and distribute charge. You can get ten to 20 years for that. But, so far as I know, people are still smoking it.

I wasn't implying there wouldn't be "home made" guns out there if guns were totally banned, just that it takes far more effort and skill to build em than it takes to make drugs, and therefore I think they'd be much rarer than drugs are if they had also been outlawed as long. This doesn't really have much to do with the topic though as there's no serious effort to ban guns altogether.

This doesn't really have much to do with the topic though as there's no serious effort to ban guns altogether.

Well, true enough. At least, not at this point anyhow.

The NRA and the gun lobbies here in the states are making too much money off of all this to let it go.

Same thing with the reason why weed is still illegal for the most part. The DEA have to justify their existence and the tax dollars that are sunk into them every year to allow that to happen.

In the end, when it comes to the ruling powers that be, it is always about the bourgeois getting richer anyhow.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno

Guns are not that complex, given enough time even I could make a basic revolver with basic machinist tools.

Not a very good one, and chances are it'll blow up in your face. You also need both the tools and materials, which are expensive.

You say there are 3 gunsmiths in 60k people. But 3 cannot supply 60k with illicit products.

Nothing in your argument is convincing. The majority can't and won't try to make a gun. Half of the remainder will kill themselves when they pull the trigger and their gun blows up in their face. The other half will get busted because they aren't smart enough to keep their gun secret. And the gunsmiths will change professions to stay out of jail.

Guns can easily be criminalised. Only a fool could think otherwise.

"No, he didn't. He used an AR-15,"

Automatic. A semi-automatic is an automatic, for the purposes of my argument. An AR 15 can fire a hundred rounds in a minute. Noone has any reason to own one. It's like it was designed to shoot into a crowd

You don't need one that is particularly good, especially when you can guarantee that your law abiding victims do not have any gun. Although, the most difficult part of making a gun is making it look pretty.

Vastet wrote:

You also need both the tools and materials, which are expensive.

Not terribly expensive.

Vastet wrote:

You say there are 3 gunsmiths in 60k people. But 3 cannot supply 60k with illicit products. Nothing in your argument is convincing. The majority can't and won't try to make a gun.

A majority of people are not dangerous with guns. Criminals are the minority and I thought the ones that we are supposed to be concerned about having guns. Only 0.4% of the population is victimized by violent crimes, considering that many criminals commit more than one crime, the amount of population that are criminals is somewhat smaller. But even so, 0.4% X 60,000 = 240. Considering that only 1/5th of those crimes are committed with firearms, that leaves approximately 48 people out of 60,000 on average are people who are going to use guns for criminal purposes. Those who never intend to actually shoot someone probably won't bother making a gun or finding someone to make one. Those who do intend to murder would, most specifically, gangs would have the connections to supply their members with guns and most likely have some member of the gang who is capable of building them.

Vastet wrote:

Half of the remainder will kill themselves when they pull the trigger and their gun blows up in their face.

That is just absurd. I have had a gun blow up in my face, it scares the shit out of you, but it isn't deadly. At worst you get small pieces of shrapnel that strike you leaving small cuts.

Vastet wrote:

Guns can easily be criminalised. Only a fool could think otherwise.

Criminalizing anything is easy. Effectively enforcing the law is another question entirely, assuming that because something is illegal that it will disappear is foolish given the hundreds of things that are illegal but are still used.

Vastet wrote:

"No, he didn't. He used an AR-15," Automatic. A semi-automatic is an automatic, for the purposes of my argument. An AR 15 can fire a hundred rounds in a minute. Noone has any reason to own one. It's like it was designed to shoot into a crowd

Then you should be more accurate in the use of your words. There is a huge difference between automatic and semi-automatic. So far all you have done in this thread is display your ignorance about guns, surprising for someone who plays so many console games, don't they have some kind of realistic depiction of guns?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

Because you're an idiot who thinks I was comparing guns to cigarettes, when I was comparing the culture of smoking to the culture of gun ownership. Every other time you write a post, you make a complete fool of yourself.

No, sir. Actually I don't.

Because if even "10%" of Americans owned guns, the occasional deranged psycho could still legally obtain guns and blow you away in your local quickymart. That's the exact reason why I said that I wasn't sure what point you were trying to make but, whatever point you were trying to make, it failed regardless. So this in no way can be comparable to how many people smoke.

Do you really think that if twice as many people smoked in America that it would be twice as easy to buy tobacco?

By the way, it's roughly 20 percent of Americans that smoke. Not 10 percent. I know you don't care to be accurate or anything, so feel free to ignore that.

You need to try and be a little more mature, Vastet. You come off as being a little snot nosed kid that only knows enough to get themselves in trouble. You are so completely certain that you understand everything (in other words you assume a lot of shit that is not factual) that you consistently make an ass of yourself.

Case in point. You assumed that I thought you were comparing guns to cigarettes. I did not assume that was what you meant, hence my comment stating my lack of understanding on what you meant. I did not assume of you but you did of me. Who's the idiot?

And you seem to be an odd mix of being arrogant but being very insecure at the same time. You're all bluster and bluff. What's up with that?

"You don't need one that is particularly good, especially when you can guarantee that your law abiding victims do not have any gun. Although, the most difficult part of making a gun is making it look pretty."

Except as years go by and guns become more rare, you'll get more people who think its fake and you'll have to pull the trigger, which the average robber is to cowardly to do. Not to mention a bunch of them will lose a hand or their life using crappy guns.

"Not terribly expensive."

More expensive than the majority can afford, prohibitively so.

"Criminals are the minority and I thought the ones that we are supposed to be concerned about having guns."

I'm concerned with ANYONE owning an automatic, not just criminals.

"approximately 48 people out of 60,000 on average are people who are going to use guns for criminal purposes."

Out of your entire population that runs to approximately 24 million people. More than 90% of whom will be in jail within a decade, if they aren't already there.

"That is just absurd. I have had a gun blow up in my face, it scares the shit out of you, but it isn't deadly. At worst you get small pieces of shrapnel that strike you leaving small cuts. "

That is absurd. The gun that blew up in your face wasn't home made by a criminal hiding from the law.

"Criminalizing anything is easy. Effectively enforcing the law is another question entirely, assuming that because something is illegal that it will disappear is foolish given the hundreds of things that are illegal but are still used."

And yet the criminalisation of guns has never failed, rendering your argument as laughable.

"Then you should be more accurate"

I said for the purposes of my argument. You can take my words out of context, but you automatically lose when you do.

"No, sir. Actually I don't." Yes, sir. Actually you did. "Because if even "10%" of Americans owned guns, the occasional deranged psycho could still legally obtain guns and blow you away in your local quickymart." And it would happen about 10% as often as it does now. Which potentially erases BOTH Colorado shootings in recent history. "Do you really think that if twice as many people smoked in America that it would be twice as easy to buy tobacco?" Supply & demand works with every industry. As does culture. Ignore reality all you like, I'll just ignore you.

I don't consider your contention that gun violence is directly correlated to gun ownership as being based on reality. How did you come to this conclusion? Is there a scientific study that you can point to in order to support such a statement? Or are you just making this argument up as we go along?

Common sense suggests there can be no gun violence without guns. Do you have a study to refute this simple logic?

Common sense?

Having a culture of only 10% of Americans owning guns (which equals 30 million gun owners) does not equal there being no guns in America.

You seem to think that if fewer people in america have legal ownership of guns that there would be fewer criminals using guns. I don't understand how you are confusing law abiding citizens with criminals.

You are putting forth an assertation that having the legal right to own guns increases the illegal use of the same.

Prove it.

"Common sense" is not proof.

I don't have a study that refutes the simple logic that there is a god, because the burden of proof is not on me to refute it, the burden of proof rests on the person making such a statement.

You put forth that point of argument as being based on something, well what is it based on?

Or are you assuming the privilege that so many theists do on here? "God exists, I contend, and it's your responsibility to provide proof that is not a factual statement."